Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 137
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. There are two problems at this time. First, the page that should be listed in identifying the dispute should be either the article page, Rio Rancho High School, or the article talk page, Talk: Rio Rancho High School. Second, it appears that another editor has joined in the discussion and that discussion is continuing. I am closing this request for now. If discussion on the article talk page continues and is inconclusive, the filing party (or any of the other editors) may refile a request here for moderated dispute resolution. In the meantime, continued civil discussion of content on the talk page is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I had updated and drastically improved the Rio Rancho High School Wikipedia page so that there was much more true and informative content. Without prior discussion, user Meters removed the content stated that the reason for the rollbacks was "Again, we don't list individual awins or non-notable students. See WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS" and "rmv mention of non-championship seasons". The additional content added great value to the page for future page inquiries. The simple mentioning of names and achievements to a schools activities is not advocating "notable student" (which I would agree with if it was on it's own page), but simply enriching the value of the page as is adding two more simple columns to a table for championship information. I would submit that instead my changes had added value, and is in keeping with Wikipedia's own stated 5th Pillar "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles." Have you tried to resolve this previously? Was threatened to be blocked on hermanns_99 talk page and tried to discussed it with User:Meters on there talk page to which they simple removed my comments. How do you think we can help? Look at the current content and then look at the content I had submitted to see with of the two versions presents the best information about the school. Summary of dispute by MetersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Meters#.22Sanitizing.22_a_page discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hermanns 99 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Surface_Book
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close for two reasons. First, the filing party has not notified the other (unregistered) editor of this filing. Second, more importantly, this request still has not had adequate discussion at the talk page. There has been discussion, but it was brief, and the last comments were more than two weeks ago, so there has been no recent discussion. Discussion on the article talk page should resume. If there is adequate discussion but it is inconclusive, this request can be refiled again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The issue is emerged after a brief edit war. Some unregistered editor keep adding the information about some past technical issue of Surface Book and Surface Pro 4, which was preventing devices of some users to properly go to the "sleep" mode. This issue was resolved with a routine software update in the February 2016. I think that such information has a non-encyclopedic nature and should not be included into online encyclopedia. Some other editor insists it should. My opinion is based on WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE Wikipedia policies, other editor is yet to have to provide his rationale. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, on the Talk page and via third opinion request. How do you think we can help? Provide a guidance how to deal with such cases now and in the future. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Surface Book discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd.
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as futile. The other editors have not responded in more than 48 hours, and participation is voluntary. A Request for Comments is suggested as the next step to resolve this content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I added info containing why and when the subject was recruited. Although referenced by in-line citations, Factoidmactoid is reverting the additions due to the info being prior to the subject's recruitment, to which he says is irrelevant to the subject because of that. Although it is prior to the subject's recruitment, it gives valid, referenced info of the reasons the subject was recruited. Nowhere is info prior to a subject's history with a group forbidden in an article page, especially when it is relevant to the topic. My attempts to resolve the matter on the talk page are not successful as he responds by reverting, stating the same thing on how it is prior to the subject's recruitment, and not by continuing discussion on the article talk page. A third opinion has stated that if the info is referenced with the correct info mentioned, which it is, it is a valid inclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I also attempted to contact the user on his talk page, to which he simply responded with the same reason in his edit reason (I copied/pasted his response on the article talk page discussion). How do you think we can help? The info I added is completely relevant to the subject and should not be removed just because it is prior to the subject's history. Other voices to help show whether the info is relevant to the subject may clear the air. Note that the opposing editor seems to not participate in talk page discussion. Summary of dispute by FactoidmactoidPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
R. Gordon Wasson
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Primarily a conduct dispute. Unregistered editors have made baseless allegations of vandalism, which are in themselves personal attacks. Registered editors have made allegations of sockpuppetry (block evasion from IPs) and of conflict of interest editing. Any actual claims of vandalism may be reported at the vandalism noticeboard. Sockpuppetry may be reported at sockpuppet investigations, but will require identifying a blocked editor. Other conduct issues, such as personal attacks, may be reported at WP:ANI. Any actual content disputes can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Also, the registered editors can request semi-protection of the article if there is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:R. Gordon Wasson Users involved
Dispute overview This is in regards to edits to an article about R. Gordon Wasson (1898-1986), who was a Vice President at JP Morgan and who wrote extensively about psychoactive mushrooms. The sequence of events began when the article was edited on March 8, 2016 by 159.53.46.142, an anonymous IP registered to JP Morgan. This edit introduced the information that Wasson participated in MK-Ultra subproject 58 (which is true) and that he was an intelligence agent (which is debatable), but all of this material was unsourced. I provided a primary reference for the MK-Ultra claim, and deleted the intelligence agent claim. 92.233.116.110 deleted the discussion of MK-Ultra, claiming it was 'uncited', but went on to add the statement that Wasson was "chief of Propaganda" at JP Morgan. In truth, he was VP of Public Relations. I restored the MK-Ultra fact, and documented Wasson's correct job description at JP Morgan. This was then deleted by 87.239.254.119, restored by Senor Cuete, deleted again by 92.233.116.110, restored by me (with an additional citation), deleted by 92.233.116.110, and restored by Senor Cuete. The drama continues, as 110 and Cuete have accused each other of edit warring. JerryRussell (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Only on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I stand by my most recent edit to the article, and hope that you can help me get it restored against deletions by 92.233.116.110 Summary of dispute by 92.233.116.110Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Senor CuetePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 87.239.254.119Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MaunusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2600:8801:2000:8c0:55e0:318e:abd1:c1bcPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 159.53.46.142Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:R. Gordon WassonPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:International Lyme_and_Associated_Diseases_Society
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conflict of interest claim. A Conflict of Interest claim is outside the scope of this noticeboard and should be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If the filing party wishes to discuss content only, and not conflict of interest, they may refile here, summarizing a content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute over the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) Wikipedia entry. It has been brought to my attention by multiple parties that the entry 1) misrepresents the medical association as an "advocacy group," 2) states the group's position in opposition to a false claim of "the consensus" based on the opinions of three different medical organizations, and 3) falsely states that "the assumption that there is a persistent [Lyme disease] infection is not supported by high quality clinical evidence." These claims all are plainly false or biased, and I and several editors prior to me, have amended the ILADS article to balance the bias and to correct false information about Lyme disease. The user Jytdog has overwritten all of these corrections despite cited evidence. I and editors before me have had thorough conversations on the article's talk page, and Jytdog has maintained that his unilateral editorial direction is based on Wikipedia policies. However, as discussed on the talk page, reviewing similar articles such as the description of the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) page reveals that Jytdog's opinion of Wikipedia policies does not apply to other organizations' pages; the IDSA page, for example, defines the IDSA as a medical association using the IDSA's website as a reference, whereas Jytdog insists that an organization may only be defined by secondary sources, never by the organization itself, and this user continually refers to ILADS, a professional association of medical doctors, as an "advocacy group" based on passing references of this nature found in arbitrarily chosen medical journal articles, which importantly are authored by individuals who oppose the ILADS organization on political grounds. Equally importantly, the references chosen state the authors' opinions, which are contrary to fact. Yet Jytdog continues to revert the page and create poorly founded argument to any refutation based on proven facts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have contacted the Wikimedia organization, including two editors and an executive, and have been directed to take this next step of filing a dispute resolution claim. Should this fail to remove the article's fallacies and clear bias, my next step will be to discuss the unilateral control and bias via the news media. (For the record, I have no direct affiliation with the ILADS organization; however, I find the misleading nature of the article extremely concerning.) How do you think we can help? Wikipedia editor Jytdog has a clear bias against both the ILADS organization and the investigation into chronic Lyme disease. S/he also has a conflict of interest by way of working for a company that produces medication for neurological disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jytdog); untreated Lyme infects the nervous system. The article should be updated to correct false information and to remove bias, and Jytdog's evident unilateral control of the ILADS entry should come to an end. Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ArtistLikePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:International Lyme_and_Associated_Diseases_Society discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | After extensive discussion, parties can not come to an agreement. The next step is to request formal mediation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain on 04:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview 1st Talk link2nd Talk link --- Although I only recently became involved, there has been a dispute since about September 2015 at the Iran nuclear deal article. Inclusion was attempted of some material regarding significant criticisms by very prominent legal figures regarding the propriety of allowing privileges and sanctions relief without Iran having to cease threatening Israel. See this NPOV noticeboard post for a complete explanation of the sourcing and proposed text. It all seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, but Inclusion of any of this material was relentlessly opposed and reverted on the claimed basis that it was a "FRINGE" view, which is frankly preposterous given any close inspection of the WP:FRINGE policy. The behavior continued after I rewrote and restored some of the material. However, I think those insisting on exclusion were not forthcoming in seriously discussing any policy basis for removing the material. One user actually purported to assess the quality of the legal view itself based on his own knowledge, which I think is also preposterous. Another user appeared to reluctantly support some kind of inclusion but made a dubious argument that since two of the scholars were already cited for a separate criticism it would be undue to cite them again, but in any event he repeatedly reverted too. Both made the puzzling claim that the criticism of the nuclear agreement was not relevant to it. Myself and the other user supporting inclusion are in disbelief, I think, that such a bald violation of policy is being claimed as an enforceable consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I posted to the NPOV noticeboard; see link above. I did not notify the others because my goal was to gain outside opinion, not continue the debate in another place. Two users responded without any reference to policy, with one attacking my motives—these responses explain my decision to seek mediated discussion rather than opening an RFC—but there was in my opinion one good substantive response, from administrator Masem. How do you think we can help? Mediate a discussion where all are expected to set forth clearly stated policy justifications for a desired outcome. Disfavor simple and conclusory use of "fringe" as an adjective to describe a claimed minority viewpoint, without reference to the policy language and examples. Act as referee. I think there is, as yet, no serious argument that well-sourced opinions in the relevant field by experts of this stature come within a country mile of the WP:FRINGE prohibition. Summary of dispute by YagasiThe proposed edits are based on opinion of prominent legal experts. To be a fringe theory, the edits must challenge a mainstream idea broadly supported by legal scholarship in reliable sources. No such scholarship sources were mentioned by proponents of the fringe claim and they have not affirmed the existence of a mainstream idea supported by scholarship. This violates WP:FRINGE. Furthermore, the proponents of the fringe claim have presented viewpoints of some Wikipedia editors as a mainstream idea by giving these viewpoints undue weight and calling the legal experts "minority". This violates WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight that plainly requires: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Moreover, the proponents of the fringe (marginal view) claim have presented their viewpoints as editor consensus. This misrepresentation violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedians must keep in mind that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia... It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Yagasi (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC) The fringe claim was supported by a subsidiary argument based on a Wikipedia editor legal interpretation of the Convention: "The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." This clearly violates the WP:NOR policy which cannot be overruled by editor consensus. Moreover, this argument is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Under Article I of the Convention "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish". In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation." Yagasi (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NPguyThe first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims. The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view. But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided. NPguy (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NeutralityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story). In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal. Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight. Neutralitytalk 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Vesuvius_DoggI agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge. For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the Talk page. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI see no evidence that this case has a moderator. If so, will the moderator please so state? If not, I will be the moderator. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Concise posts are more informative than overly long ones. Comment on content, not contributors. I expect every participant to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. As noted, please do not engage in threaded discussion with other editors. Address your comments to the community or the moderator (there isn't any real difference). Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discussion at the article talk page may be ignored by accident. Will each participant please summarize, in one paragraph, what the issue is about the article and how it either should be changed or how it should be left as is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC) First statements by editorsI'll be brief. My view is that the proposed text from my earlier noticeboard post should be added to the article and then not be reverted out by the editors here. The question is whether to exclude the prose above, along with the underlying views and sources reflected. A few specific policy arguments have been raised, but on a more general level, it is argued that a WP editor is empowered to force an exclusion of expert commentary based on the editor's own belief as to whether the source is right. That is, if a particular user believes an influential figure's view is wrong, can he forcibly prevent other users from reflecting it in a centrally related article—thereby allowing the first editor's unpublished personal legal theories and political preferences to override both important source material and the activity of other editors? Alternatively, can the view be excluded if it is claimed to be a minority view? Isn't this all specifically forbidden by each and every sentence that appears in the first paragraph of WP:V? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Before continuing the content disputes, I would like to know: 1. Who are the present participants? 2. What happens if at least one of them does not accept your mediation? 3. What happens if one of them does not submit his statements after 48 hours? Yagasi (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorFirst, I will answer the questions of User:Yagasi. The participants are any editors who have submitted statements or otherwise agreed to take part in mediation. If at least one of them does not accept mediation, I will make a decision whether it will be useful to continue mediation with less than all of the editors, or whether I will close the case, and will probably recommend an RFC in that case. If an editor does not submit a statement within 48 hours, but discussion is still continuing by other editors, the lateness will not be noted and discussion will continue. If discussion stalls for 48 hours, with no comments, the case will be closed. One editor, DMTPWA, has submitted a statement that I do not find helpful, because it doesn't identify what text they think should be included or excluded. It is also argumentative in using very non-neutral words such as "forcibly prevent" and "force an exclusion". Maybe that is what the other editors are doing, but we need to talk about article content, not contributors. Once again, be concise in stating what article content should be included or excluded. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editorsMy statement is as follows. Wikipedia's declared fundamental principles include: being an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view and having no firm rules. It does have policies and guidelines that are in effect and must be respected, but these may be changed at some time in the future. As I summarized above, some of effective policies and guidelines were violated when the genocide related issue was repeatedly removed, first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe. The most concerning was the third revert when the so called "consensus" was established without even mentioning a single reliable source. If a group of editors is eligible to establish such a kind of consensus and remove text based on opinion of prominent legal experts, then this must be properly disclosed to the community and to the public. However WP:RS requires articles to be based "on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority view". In conclusion, I would like to state that the text of the third revert or the text proposed by the filing participant should be included in the subsection (or section) "Continued criticism" of the article. Copies of both texts will be added to the mediation. Yagasi (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderatorI asked the editors to provide a concise statement as to what text should be included or excluded. The above statement, which is only about the policies and not about the specific text, is too concise on the point of the text (containing nothing about the text) (as well as being argumentative). Will each editor please state concisely, in one paragraph, what they want included or excluded? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editorsYour statements have been puzzling, because (1) your First Statement by Volunteer Moderator asked for a summary of how the article should be changed, not a detailed explanation with sourcing and proposed text, which we of course could not present in one paragraph; (2) the proposed text was quite conspicuously and obviously linked in both my initial request for moderation and my First Statement, above; (3) the proposed text is more than one paragraph, yet you are asking us to both include the proposed text and argue "concisely" for its inclusion in a single paragraph. Do participants who are arguing for addition of text perhaps get an extra paragraph to post the proposed text? If not, why is linking to the proposed text not acceptable? Also, doesn't the side that insists on exclusion have to say something, or is it solely our burden to jump through hoops? Finally, I did not mention any editors or even specific edits, but rather the policy questions at issue, and I don't see how to discuss this without mentioning those policy questions. Ok, now here is the proposed text crammed into one "paragraph".Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination.[1]Proposed text 2:In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.[2]Proposed text 3: Talk:Mawlid Law professor Alan Dershowitz argued in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism."[3] Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)References
Former Closing Statement by Former ModeratorI made this statement, and am now asked to allow the case to be re-opened. Here was my closing statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Unfortunately, I am having to close this case as failed. After asking three times for concise statements of how the article should be changed or left alone, I have received, first, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, second, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, third, a wall of text. Even if it is true that the other editors are trying to suppress the presentation of a minority viewpoint by misuse of the fringe policy, the filing party isn't presenting a concise summary that permits mediation. At this point, I would recommend that the approach that is most likely to resolve this dispute would be a Request for Comments. However, I would strongly advise all parties that the wording of the RFC should be neutral and concise. If the RFC is either non-neutral (e.g., argumentative) or overly lengthy, it will not establish consensus and will just allow continued quarreling. So a neutral concisely worded RFC is the most likely way to resolve this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I am now marking this case available for another moderator. If a moderator does not accept this case at this noticeboard, the participants may request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Accepted Case By New ModeratorI accept the role of moderator in this dispute. I will be here at least once every 24 hours, to moderate the dispute. Please explain the issue and I'll see what I can do to resolve it. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC) First Volunteer Moderator StatementPlease explain the issue in one reasonably-sized paragraph. Do not make it too long, no longer than 8 sentences. Explain what the problem is, what your proposed solutions are, and notify everyone in the case if they haven't been already. If possible, discuss the problem civilly with other users. I will check in once every 24 hours, all users are expected to check in once every 30 hours, or as much as possible. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC) The case in a nutshell by editorsA fragment of the article, based on the opinion of prominent lawyers published in three independent RS, was entirely excluded. The lawyers have expressed concern that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was not in full accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The fragment was reverted — first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe — as a result of giving undue weight to the personal views of Wikipedia editors compared with the legal opinion from RS. The primary issues of the case are: 1. Is it appropriate to include in an article on international treaty/deal, particularly on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, criticism or other legal opinion on it given by prominent lawyers? 2. Can such a criticism or legal opinion be excluded from the article due to the above claims or these arguments prove the contrary? Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) The exclusion of the above "proposed text" numbered 1-3 is based on an agreement among a few editors that the material in question represents "fringe" viewpoints. Despite the agreement by multiple editors, this argument is essentially based on the assertion by a single editor that he is a better source of legal analysis than highly influential legal experts whose views have been vetted and published by reliable sources that are subject to professional editorial control. The editor also claims that, having reviewed certain pieces of primary source material himself(!), he does not believe the experts' legal views are correct, and thus on the strength of this personal analysis, they should not only be treated as fringe views, they should actually be regarded as not being legal views at all—despite the fact that the authors and publications do present them as legal views, and despite the fact that, in the first instance, it was the established legal expertise of the authors that led to their views being selected by the RS's to supply published discussion of the JCPOA. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that these exclusions reflect proper editing; in fact, these editor claims are clear original research even though the editor has not tried to include them in article prose. Since the material in question is well in keeping with all applicable policies, and since the arguments for exclusion have no validity and no support in WP policy, the reversions should cease. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC) First proposition by editorsI propose to agree that the reverted fragment should be restored and, if somebody has concerns about a specific detail of it, this can be disputed here as the next stage. Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Second Moderator StatementOkay, those were good summaries that explained the problem at hand. Can you give me more information about the lawyer who is being discussed? The opposing side, please present your counterargument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Second statement by filing partyThe disputed commentary is sourced to four authors who are all very prominent legal academics and/or lawyers, with two having extensive experience in government policy-making or advocacy roles. The first is a renowned academic, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who at 25 years old became the youngest full professor at Harvard Law School, where he has remained; he enjoys an endowed chair; (extended bio here). The second is renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin who served in the administrations of two U.S. presidents, has specialized in international public law and litigation before the International Court of Justice, and has testified before the U.S. Congress numerous times on various legal matters; (extended bio here). The third is former U.S. Justice Department and Department of Energy lawyer Lee A. Casey, co-author of the Rivkin piece, who represented 26 states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain Medicare revisions contained within Obamacare; (extended bio here). Finally, we have Louis René Beres, an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.); (extended bio here). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Opposing viewsHaven't we done this already? See the summaries of he dispute by NPguy, Neutrality, and Vesuvius_Dogg above. NPguy (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of repeating points that are directly above on this talk page. But here goes:
Two other editors, Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg, have made supporting statement above, but I leave it to them to (re)state their positions. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I, too, don't understand the need to copy-and-paste my previous statement, but here it is:
Neutralitytalk 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Third Moderator StatementPlease discuss the problem civilly. Make your points in this discussion. I will take part, and after it comes to an end, we can resolve this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC) DiscussionI am opening the discussion. Please discuss the problem, and find a solution. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I agree that the article is quite long and many opinions are presented in it, but none of them discuss genocide. Is not the opinion of recognized legal experts on this issue significant enough to be presented in relation to this international treaty/deal? I think it is. Yagasi (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Yes, but I'm not convinced on how valid that opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, @NPguy:, your opinion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
One avenue we have not explored is what other legal scholars think of some of these arguments. For example, here is an effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey: More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal, by Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration. A key quote from that article: "That Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" This is in line with my previous commentary, which Yagasi mocks above. I took another look at Beres's CV. Although his CV does not list a legal degree or other formal legal credentials (which is what I looked for at first), he did teach international law and has quite a few publications on on international law. Despite those apparent qualifications, his arguments are not credible. To take one example with which I am familiar, the claim that "Here, the most ominous risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after 15 years. These plainly ironic allowances contradict the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" is - if intended literally - mistaken. Enrichment per se does not contradict the NPT. That's all for today. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Evidence of Iranian incitement to genocide was presented in the article "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative" by Cotler. While negotiating with Iran the P5+1 states, each of them separately and all of them collectively, had at their disposal the means to influence Iran (which was interested in lifting economic sanctions on it) to stop the genocidal declarations of its current leaders. After the JCPOA was agreed by the parties without any provisions against "direct and public incitement to commit genocide", the P5+1 have much less means to comply with their obligation to prevent genocide. As far as I can remember, nobody asserted here that other States should "refrain from any agreement with Iran", as some participants of the discussion claim, but a better deal could be achieved. Yagasi (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC) @NPguy: this dispute has already festered for 8 months. You have had quite enough time to marshal any policy arguments you think support the exlusion of these POVs. Please do not delay your participation in this discussion any further; it's been almost 48 hours without a response from you. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@NPguy: Please remember to be civil. You actually have to support your argument. While I don't believe it's a fringe opinion, it may be in the minority. If you do not discuss the problem, I will let Yagasi and Password do what they want with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC) @ThePlatypusofDoom: thank you. I would like to add the following. I apologize for the length; thus far, I have avoided responding to NPguy's arguments regarding the subject matter itself, but now I have responded further below. But first, regarding the relevant policies: While I think that the "majority/minority" dichotomy is a bit fuzzy in certain fields, such as law, where there are rarely if ever any "objectively correct" answers, at a minimum I think it has been shown that the disputed view is no less than a "significant minority view" as delineated in the "Due and undue weight" section of WP:NPOV:
The latter of these two approaches—i.e. the second bullet point—is precisely what Yagasi and I have done. All the named sources are prominent in one or more of the following fields: law, political science, nuclear weapons policy, and international diplomacy. In particular, Dershowitz and Rivkin are so prominent that they can fairly be described as "luminaries" in the field of law. Notice also that the first bullet point refers to "commonly accepted reference texts". I doubt there is any such source showing that NPguy's preferred view is so well-established that it is actually a clear "majority opinion". Certainly, no such source has been shown thus far. Nor does the fact that the agreement was not widely rejected do anything to prove the prevalence of either view. All it shows is that the political authorities signing the deal judged that it would be better to enter into the deal, than not to do so. Laws and legal norms and principles get ignored all the time—by legislative authorities, by judicial authorities, by political executives, and indeed by the general public. The fact that the deal was signed does not show that there were no valid concerns regarding Iranian behavior viz. the Genocide Convention which cast doubt on the propriety of the deal. Moreover, NPguy's stated opinions on the subject matter itself, besides being fully irrelevant to content in WP article space, appear to be laden with straw-man argumentation. For example: Nobody's accusing Iran of genocidal threats against Israel because of some ho-hum abstract suggestion "that the country should not exist". That is pure sophistry. Rather, we're talking about repeated threats of mass violence, including thinly veiled threats of nuclear annihilation; just a few months ago Iran launched empty ballistic missiles (which are only useful for delivering nukes and other WMD) inscribed with the message "Israel must be wiped out". Iranian government news services even said the purpose of the launches was to show that Iranian missiles could hit Israel, and a spokesman added that "Israel would not last long in a war". Nor is anyone suggesting that parties to the Genocide Convention must refrain from taking any dealing "that might be of any benefit to Iran"; but, that said: not giving permission to enrich nuclear fuel today—and permission to build nuclear weapons in ten years—to a nation that has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy a tiny country containing 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's Jews, does not seem like an outrageous suggestion for preventing genocide. After all, how hard can it be to stop threatening to wipe out a foreign country? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC) @Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: @NPguy: Do you think a wording like "so and so has criticized the convention because...... but some scholars claim that this opinion is not valid" would work? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The question whether the statements by Iranian leadership look rhetorical is not relevant. The Convention does not condition the act of "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide" on existence or absence of rhetoric. Rhetoric was not even mentioned in the 2007 judgment of the ICJ. In 2012 the website of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that there is religious "justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel, and Iran must take the helm." These words did not prevent you, NPguy, from claiming on the talk page in 2015: "Does Iran want to kill all Israelis? Nothing I have seen suggests that it does." Do you think that non-Jewish Israelis would remain alive? Yagasi (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Nor does the Goldsmith paragraph address the claims by Beres at all. The blog post's conclusion also stops just short of saying that the administration has concocted a thin and hypertechnical legal rationale for allowing the deal to go forward; it says nothing about whether it is good policy—or consistent with the goals of the Genocide Convention—for the U.S. to grant its nuclear imprimitur to a nation that has made genocidal nuclear threats. @NPguy: you seem pretty well-versed in the arguments in favor of the deal; is there anything similar in a newspaper or perhaps something else with traditional editorial oversight, or at least vetting and review of articles by persons other than the authors? If a 96-word bullet point in a borderline self-published blog post are the only sourcing we've got, I'd be a bit reluctant to present that as a serious rebuttal. Second, a small comment regarding the wording. Personally, I think a number of policies are better served when two conflicting views are presented in two separate sentences. I can elaborate later if you find that approach acceptable, but I just think it's easier for the WP editorial voice to avoid taking sides when the content is written that way. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC) @Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: I would go for the second option, make a small comment regarding the wording. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, and I realize that this may seem to be a step backwards, but I want to keep the focus on the merits of these claims. This is a at least a two-level question:
Frankly, I haven't seen a lot of rebuttals to these claims (about the JCPOA and the genocide convention). I think they are simply dismissed as so ridiculous on their face that no rebuttal is needed. That has been my view from the beginning. I have to correct the discussion above on one more point. The JCPOA does not give Iran permission to acquire nuclear weapons after ten years. Quite the opposite, the JCPOA is built around Iran's explicit commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons. For Iran to build nuclear weapons would be a violation of the JCPOA. NPguy (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I would invite Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg to comment. Perhaps we should also invite an editor who is an expert on the genocide convention to comment. None of us is such an expert. I'm really not sure what this process is supposed to do, but I remain no more persuaded that these views deserve recognition than before this started. If these views are to be presented, there needs to be some sort of contrary view of at least part of the claim. Perhaps there is room for presenting opposing views on the question of whether Iran's rhetoric constitutes a genocidal threat. For example, there is this piece in Ha'aretz. There are a few others, but I'm less sure of their reliability. This is where a subject matter expert could help. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The disputed fragment should not be wiped off the WP. I hope the question of minority/majority opinion will be irrelevant in the future. Goldsmith's view may be included. Peter Beinart is not a lawyer. His opinion may be added if the Robert Wistrich's opinion is included. The edit summary should say: Consensual edit achieved through DRN mediation - details at the talk page; the talk page should include a link to the archived DRN case. Yagasi (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw ThePlatypusofDoom's request for an international law expert. While I'm not thoroughly familiar with the Genocide Convention and scholarship in it, I'd be happy to do some research and answer some questions. The threshold question I see is whether the Genocide Convention prohibits "threats" to engage in genocide. My initial impression is that it's an open question and has been considered an open question in the legal scholarship. Harmen van der Wilt comments at reasonable length about this in a book chapter in 2012. He mostly discusses "incitement to genocide" cases tried before the ICTR, notably contrasting the Bikindi case with the Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Ngeze case. Towards the end, though, he spends some time considering the issues of Iran and the speech directed towards Israel, ultimately referring to an article by Susan Benesch on the subject.[1] Benesch, at the time a teaching fellow and adjunct at Georgetown Law, considers a "reasonably possible consequences test" and applies this approach to the Ahmadinejad case, but ultimately concludes that it is highly unlikely that the ICC or ICJ would take on such a case.[2] Interesting case. I'll be reading some more. Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding what the question is, though. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Arbitrary breakI'm putting in a break so I don't have to keep scrolling up and down. I've read the relevant portions of the Genocide Case, and they're quite enlightening. From what I gather in the case, the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute do not directly accord state responsibility for genocide, but create a dual responsibility regime where there is an obligation to punish individuals. States may still be responsible to other States against whose nationals genocide occurred, though I would note the definition of genocide for State responsibility purposes might be different than what the Genocide Convention and Rome Statute use. Namely, I think it's questionable whether there would be State responsibility for public incitement. The way the Genocide Case works is that there was State responsibility for failure to abide by the Genocide Convention because the respondent failed to prevent the genocide, and failed to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators. Turning to the Iran question, part of the problem is that the public statements are not themselves genocide under the Convention (Art. II), but might be punishable under the Convention (Art. III). Given, as far as I understand, Iran hasn't prosecuted or extradited Ahmadinejad, they may be argued to have failed to honor their obligations under the Convention (Art. IV). That said, it's still a question of fact requiring a trial as to whether Ahmadinejad's statements were punishable. But that leaves aside the question, as I understand it, of whether the other States Parties to the JCPOA violate their obligations under international law by joining that agreement and lifting sanctions on Iran on the grounds that Iran had failed to live up to its obligations under the Genocide Convention because it did not prosecute or extradite Ahmadinejad. I'm really curious as to the argument, and unfortunately I haven't been able to get past the WSJ paywall to read the Rivkin & Casey op-ed yet. I'm going to look at Zimmerman next. If I'm misunderstanding the dispute here, I'd appreciate some guidance. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) The dispute is if these arguments have legal merit. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Mendaliv, enjoy your reading. I would ask you to pay attention to Summary of dispute by Yagasi. In particular, to WP:DUE that requires: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So if you do not agree with the proposed criticism/opinions from RS, try to introduce alternative or disproving RS. Yagasi (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, what's this about a presumption from an old doctrine?
Gregory Shank is emphatically not an expert on the subject matter. He has two sociology degrees and a criminology degree. So I'm not sure it would be good to cite him even for his own opinion here, much less use him to rebut or justify excluding Rivkin/Beres/Dershowitz/etc. Nor is the Social Justice Journal even a law journal. You're citing a non-prominent sociologist against multiple heavyweight legal figures on the subject of the legal validity of an international treaty? Are you doing this research on Westlaw/LexisNexis? How were you searching for law review articles? In response to your prior posts, I would note that Beres's argument about the U.S. obligation to provide "effective penalties" for incitement to genocide certainly doesn't presuppose that sanctioning Iran is the only way to meet the obligations; rather it presupposes that any agreement whereby Iran is allowed to take actions which lay foundations for nuclear weapons production will constitute a failure to have imposed "effective penalties". This related to a central contention of the article ("[T]here is little doubt that the proposed pact — allegedly designed to prevent Iranian nuclearization — would effectively render Iranian nuclearization a fait accompli."). But in any event, your own analysis of whether the view is correct can't inform the question of whether the view is held or accepted by others in legal academia. Rather it's your ability to find and read relevant legal sources on either the subject matter or the POV itself or an opposing view by an equivalent expert in the field. Oh and your Westlaw account haha. I also don't see any language in WP:FRINGE that even comes close to authorizing the removal of a POV simply because it has not been widely cited in academic literature. Is it your belief that WP:FRINGE encompasses flat-Earth theories, Elvis-is-alive theories, Paul-McCartney-is-dead theories, moon landing conspiracy theories, astrology, creation science, and prominent expert opinions from mainstream sourcing that have not been widely cited in academia within 8-10 months of publication? No, again, the question is whether the view is held by experts, and if so approximately and relatively how many. The fact that a number of very prominent individuals have published views in mainstream sources (it really doesn't matter much that they're not academic) is enough to show that it is held by no less than a significant minority. I refer again to Jimbo Wales's guidance for gauging weight to be afforded views: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". That's what we've done. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
BreakI have to put a break here, I don't want to scroll down all the way. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not a law student and I have substantially more familiarity with international law than a course in law school. But I doubt that would make a whit of difference to you given it's becoming blatantly clear you're unwilling to consider anything other than your personal opinion on these sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
As noted, nothing in the fringe policy authorizes removal of an attributed POV simply because it is not held by a majority in academia, or simply because it hasn't been cited in academic literature within less than a year. Actually that's contrary to several clear dictates of the policy, as well as being contrary to NPOV and DUE. The expert credentials of the authors on the subject matter are clearly extremely strong, the publications clearly extremely mainstream. WP:FRINGE is simply not triggered; the opinion is sufficiently established as a significant minority opinion under WP:DUE, per the quoted Jimbo Wales guidelines ("If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"). WP:DUE is thereby satisfied by maintaining clear attribution of the POV while keeping summaries of the views brief. Any concerns about presenting a non-majority view are quite well dispelled by citing opinions to the contrary, e.g. the one by Jack Goldsmith—in fact, that specific Goldsmith piece conveniently includes a statement stating that author's opinion that the view was probably rejected or ignored by the nations signing the JCPOA. I have already proposed text above to present this in rebuttal to Rivkin/Casey/Beres/etc. Minority opinion by prominent expert in high-quality mainstream sourced carefully attributed, responded to with sourced rebuttal; problem solved, inquiry over, and WP readers do not die of leprosy because of being exposed to a POV that might not be the WP:TRUTH. As previously noted by an administrator not involved in this discussion, citing WP:FRINGE as a reason to exclude this well-sourced expert POV is just not a proper application of WP:FRINGE. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
BreakCould you each explicitly respond to the following comment by User:Masem, quoted from a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, which is flatly contrary to the positions you are taking?:
(emphasis added). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: You say your position is not at all contrary to the one Masem stated; then do you agree with his statement that "while their statements that there might legal issues with an international deal can be considered an 'exceptional claim', their expertise and the sources reporting them are well above the bar for 'exceptional sources' to support that claim." ? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: Mendaliv is not here to exhibit his personal viewpoint. The matter is not if we agree or disagree with something, it is about how significant the opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC) @ThePlatypusofDoom: with respect, please, don't interrupt. Mendaliv is insisting that we directly reject a neutral uninvolved admin's policy analysis of these sources and claims, and instead do the opposite. I want to know why. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC) NOTE:If this case continues for another week and not much progress is made, I will have to close it as failed. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC) BreakPutting in another break. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: This is because Mendaliv knows more about law then an admin. Unless the admin went to law school, he's the expert here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@ThePlatypusofDoom: I thought it was pretty clear that I'm a lawyer. Mendaliv has made a number of errors in elementary reasoning and reading comprehension. He has raised several vague and uncited personal opinions about the subject matter, but that's of little consequence. In any event, ordinary sourcing policies are not suspended just because an editor has a personal POV that a source is wrong. That's covered under the policy on soapboxing; either the editor finds a source version of his POV or he accepts that it can't be reflected on WP (because of WP:V). Perhaps Yagasi is a lawyer, too; we haven't discussed it because it's not especially relevant. Anyway, again, I didn't request that this admin participate because he wasn't part of the dispute—but neither was Mandeliv. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Nothing personal, just pointing out (in response to your opinion being claimed as authoritative) that you've made analytical errors in the OR arguments rebutting the source POVs. But more to the point, personal editor OR arguments about subject matter POVs, and whether they are correct, don't matter. Anyway, you said you don't agree with Masem's statement; Masem said all three sources and opinions were fine for inclusion given their relation to the subject matter. I happen to agree with this, because as I stated (do you want me to quote policy language again?) high quality non-academic sources in mainstream circulation are fine for stating POVs that commentators have. Yagasi also agrees. Anyway, will you please acknowledge the editor's statement and say why we shouldn't implement it? I have posted suggested text below. Do you see any problems?
To my opinion, the upgraded text proposed by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain is cautious, well balanced, and reflects the review of reliable sources held till now. The proposition should be discussed and all questions ought to be answered before any decision is taken or a consensus is achieved. Yagasi (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC) @Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: The text is too long for small minority viewpoint. Shorten it to three sentences. Also, about being a lawyer, you haven't brought it up earlier in the discussion. Why? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
As I've stated and others seem keen to ignore, there was never any point where there was not proposed text on the table. User:ThePlatypusofDoom is not a participant to this discussion, and he is a brand-new editor who began his Wikipedia career six days before this dispute began. He has been on WP for about 6 weeks in total. Since he is a non-participant who doesn't seem to know anything about WP policy, I'm ignoring his demands as unsupported. In answer to his question, I didn't previously state explicitly that I was a lawyer because it was fairly obvious. More importantly though, it's irrelevant, because WP policy does not afford any special role, privileges, or powers to editors claiming to be experts. @Mendaliv: and @NPguy: I will be including this text at the article unless you identify specific policy language showing it must be reduced for some reason. My patience for tendentious ignorance of policy is at an end. I note that you've expended an awful lot of breath complaining that you don't want to reply to Masem's confirmation that, per the relevant WP policies, all the sources and POVs are kosher for inclusion (pun intended). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: Remember to be WP:CIVIL, as you seem to be heading towards incivility. My experience doesn't matter. I also note that you have been reprimanded for edit warring before. Also, if length of Wikipedia career is a measure, NPguy would be judged to be correct, because he has been on Wikipedia longer. So, this statement is invalid. Your statement on me, the moderator has no place in this. The statement about expertise is true, but someone who knows more about the subject is probably better. I know nothing about International Law (probably a good thing, I don't have any bias). So, I defer to people who have experience in this subject. Also, I know a fair amount in the policies, do not say "Oh, he's only been here for 6 weeks" as an excuse for claiming that you are correct.
User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain and User:Yagasi, write your shortened version of the previous paragraph below this text:=Closing of CaseAfter over 14 days with me as moderator, we have gotten nowhere. I am closing the case, I would request formal mediation. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
|
Manny Pacquiao
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Pending at edit-warring noticeboard. Filing party agrees that edit-warring noticeboard is the proper venue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Pacphobia claims that a lineal championship (or "lineal champion", "lineal title", etc.) should be both italicised and capitalised as a proper name, when it is merely a 'conceptual' title—an idealised statistic—one that is neither handed out in the form of a championship belt nor granted as an official status by any boxing governing body. In doing so, he fails to realise that all mainstream media uses lower case without italics; i.e., "lineal". He also seems to (silently?) disagree with a recent community consensus, as well as MOS:EMPHASIS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have attempted discussion to provide rationale at User:Pacphobia's talk page but without success, as they choose only to communicate via edit summaries. Addressing a consensus/unanimously-agreed formatting issue at the article talk page itself would be redundant in this situation, as the format has already been established at WikiProject Boxing. As of User:Pacphobia's most recent revert (of which there have been three so far), he has now resorted to insults, making this not only a content issue but a conduct one as well. How do you think we can help? Inform User:Pacphobia of how basic WP guidelines work—namely MOS:EMPHASIS, MOS:CAPS and MOS:TITLE—and how they apply directly to the presentation of lineal championships. Furthermore, if they wish to challenge the existing consensus at WikiProject Boxing, they are welcome to do so—but they must make the first move, since talk page discussion has so far proved fruitless. Oh, and possibly make them aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA—I refuse to collaborate with anyone who needs to insult others to get their way.
Summary of dispute by PacphobiaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Manny Pacquiao discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all dispute resolution, discussion here must be preceded by extensive discussion at the talk page. There has been one comment on the talk page. Resume discussion at the talk page. If discussion continues and is inconclusive, dispute resolution may be pursued again. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Sturmvogel 66 is capitalizing "8 Water-tube boilers" and "4 Shafts" (but not "1600 officers and crewmen") in the infobox, because "water-tube" and "shafts" and not first words. I don't think that's correct. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage discussion How do you think we can help? Finding the guideline or style guide applicable. Summary of dispute by Sturmvogel 66Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Frederick S._Jaffe
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | RohanRidesAgain has failed to respond, so DaveJaffe |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Filed by DaveJaffe on 16:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This concerns a section of the biography of Frederick S. Jaffe, a Planned Parenthood VP who was my father, concerning a table in a 1969 memo of his listing many proposals for population policy, most of which were not from Planned Parenthood. RohanRidesAgain has added circumstantial evidence that attempts to tie Jaffe and Planned Parenthood to some of the proposals in the table such as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies" as well as a link to a site, "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". I would like the standard Wikipedia rigor be applied to his argument as well as to his choice of primary site. See Case for Third Opinion process - Dave Jaffe in the Talk page for my concise case. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I solicited a Third Opinion but was informed by Robert McClenon that this dispute was better suited for here. How do you think we can help? I would like the wording changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo. Summary of dispute by RohanRidesAgainPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
(Appreciate the notice of the conversation, and appreciate too that DaveJaffe has stopped summarily reverting edits) RohanRidesAgain (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Frederick S._Jaffe discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First Statement by moderatorI am opening the discussion and accept the role of moderator. Please make your cases, and discuss. Remember to be WP:CIVIL, though. Make the statements short though, I do not want a wall of text. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Summary of Dispute by Dave JaffeMy father, Frederick S. Jaffe, was a Planned Parenthood Vice President who in 1969 wrote a memo to a colleague listing a series of questions that would need to be asked about any population policy proposals. To illustrate one question regarding selectivity of impact in the U.S., he created a table of many of the current proposals of the time, from many sources (with attribution) and ranked them on that criteria. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have seized upon that table to claim that, by not denouncing some of the options, Planned Parenthood in fact supported such policies as "Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies". They ignore the fact that the table also includes such wacky ideas as "Encourage increased homosexuality" and "Chronic Depression". Again, most of these proposals came from sources outside of Planned Parenthood. The gist of what Rohan and others are attempting to add to this page is circumstantial evidence tying Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to such policies and including a link to a site entitled "The Jaffe Memo: A Sinister Agenda on a Single Page". He/they further have added information about the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (of which Jaffe was one of nine consultants) without any original citations, relying on a single quote from Jaffe that can be interpreted in many ways. Rohan and I disagree on three key points:
I would like Rohan’s unsubstantiated claims removed and the paragraph changed back to my original wording, which acknowledges the controversy, states the *facts* of the matter simply, and includes a link to the memo (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KCqtNShmxgYTA1REcxai1OME0/view). DaveJaffe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC) @DaveJaffe: Okay. The website that Rohan wants to link seems very WP:FRINGE, I don't think it should included in the article. What is the quote that can be interpreted in many ways? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC) ThePlatypusofDoom, Rohan added the section "Advocacy for Population Control" to attempt to connect Jaffe/Planned Parenthood to the coercive population control methods listed in that table. His only basis for this section is the fact that Jaffe was one of 9 consultants used by the Rockefeller Commission and this quote: "Persons seeking an improved health system and those seeking rapid reduction in population growth can work in harmony toward the stabilized population recommended by the Commission of Population Growth and the American Future, Frederick S. Jaffe said at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association. The commission's principal conclusion is that there is no convincing argument for continued population growth, said Mr. Jaffe, director of the Center for Family Planning Program Development of Planned Parenthood-World Population". Jaffe and Planned Parenthood advocated voluntary family planning instead of coercive population control methods, believing that when people have the education and access to birth control they would choose smaller families for economic reasons, thus keeping the population from growing. There is nothing in the quote Rohan found that indicates otherwise. DaveJaffe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC) @RohanRidesAgain: your response? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC) @RohanRidesAgain: If you do not respond in 2 days, I will close this case and allow DaveJaffe to do what he wants with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Because RohanRidesAgain has not responded, I will close this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
|
EgyptAir Flight 804
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. There has been no discussion of the added and removed material on the article talk page. The filing unregistered editor (who is advised that creating a registered account will facilitate any dispute resolution when dispute resolution is started, and that registered editing preserves privacy better than IP addresses) has not notified the other parties of this filing. The more basic problem is that, although there has been addition and removal of material on the article page, there has been no discussion on the talk page. The parties should discuss the contentious material on the article talk page. If that discussion is inconclusive, they may file here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have found a source in the press identifying the meaning of all the recent aviation codes received for the Flight MS 804, and have listed my source and then put the meaning for every code. Unfortunately, every time, I put the information, I find that it was undid by the two members listed below. Not sure, why. At first, I didn't have the source, which one of them highlighted on a talk page, but then, I did specify the source and still they kept removing it, every time I list the information. Not sure, what else can I do. I feel the information in important, as those codes are meaningless without an explanation. Please advice. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to talk to them, but in vain How do you think we can help? I am not sure, I just need to know if we need another source. Summary of dispute by GuysayshiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FirebracePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
EgyptAir Flight 804 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|